Is I Irrational? by Colin Foster

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Is I Irrational? by Colin Foster Is i irrational? by Colin Foster I once saw a Key Stage 3 lesson in which pupils were Quite often, statements are not returned to and simplifying algebraic expressions, and where each reformulated as new things are learned. Assumptions question part (a, b, c, …) involved only the letter of that build up that may be helpful for a while but become question, so part b might have been something like problematic later (Tall, 2013). For example, typically 5b – 2b + b – 3b. When some of the pupils reached part i and were working on a question like 8i + 4i – 9i + 3i, numbers make an appearance. An irrational number is the idea of ‘irrational’ gets defined long before complexp the teacher stopped the class and suggested to the pupils any number which can’t be written in the form q , where (tongue in cheek, of course) that in that question part p and q are integers. Perhaps we should have said ‘any they were actually doing something much more advanced. real number …’? But then what would that have added for They could congratulate themselves that they were doing someone who hasn’t yet met any number that isn’t real, complex numbers, since in maths i actually means an or doesn’t even know that such a number could exist? It’s imaginary number (Note 1)! the sort of thing the teacher might slip in for the sake of their own mathematical conscience, but which is either Of course, the teacher was not being totally serious not noticed by the pupils or leads to questions which are about this, and had chosen to take an opportunity to introduce the pupils to the problem of square-rooting lesson. (If you are introducing irrational numbers today, a negative number, saying that we use the letter i as youlikely might to divert not want significantly today also from to be the the main lesson point where of youthe a ‘made-up number’ for − . But it got me thinking 1 have to introduce the idea of an imaginary number.) So whether in any sense it could be true to say that they one day, years later, when a pupil asks, “Is i irrational?” were ‘doing complex numbers’? On the face of it, their there may be a bit of work to do in sorting it out. activity didn’t look much different from that of a further It may be that this question arises partly because i is the numbers, simplifying expressions like 3 + 8i – 5 – 2i. Ismathematics i + i = 2i only student adding in theirimaginary first lessonnumbers on ifcomplex I think also be provoked by the cartoon (Fig. 1) that occasionally first letter of irrational (as well as imaginary). It might about the fact that i = −1 as I do it? Of course, it is only a convention to use i for −1; any other part of that the numbers i and , and has i saying to , “Be rational!” question could equally well have been thought of as anddoes the saying rounds to i “Getamong real!” sixth This formers, joke depends which personifies on the fact involving complex numbers, as of course nowhere did that is real but notπ rational, but mightπ be understood the book specify that the quantities were all real! as suggestingπ that i is rational but not real, otherwise i is beingπ hypocritical! So is i rational or irrational? Sometimes we do not always state clearly what we mean. For example, we might say that although we can factorize x2 – 1, as (x + 1)(x – 1), we can’t factorize x2 + 1, for example. However, just changing the letter name from x to z might suggest otherwise. On seeing z2 + 1, we might think in terms of working over the complex numbers, rather than over the reals, and so say that we could factorize it, as (z + i) (z – i) (Note 2). So the answer to “Is x2 + 1 irreducible?” depends on the set of numbers which we consider the choice of a letter x could push us towards considering onlycoefficients real numbers. to belong to, and something as slight as a Fig. 1 A number joke Mathematics in School, January 2018 The MA website www.m-a.org.uk 31 31-33-Foster QA is i irrational.indd 31 22/12/2017 09:14 … –3 < –2 < –1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 … be expressed as the ratio of two integers. The only square Similarly, the imaginary axis is also a line, so presumably rootsBy our of definition integers whichabove, are i is rational not rational, are the since square it cannot roots we can write: of positive square numbers (and zero). Pupils might think that although –5 is not rational, –9 might possibly be, … –3i < –2i < –i < 0 < i < 2i < 3i … since 9 is a square number. However, writing = p , where –9 q But in general, the non-reals have two parts to them – q p2 = –9q2, which has no solutions for real p they are like ‘2-dimensional numbers’, so they can’t be and q, except p = q = 0, which contradicts the statement that put into order along a 1-dimensional line. q ≠ 0, leads to However, this is not right at all, as I only realized much So i is not rational — so is it irrational then? Not so fast! ≠ 0. So based on this we cannot call i rational. later on! The symmetry between the reals and the purely ‘Irrational’ is normally taken to refer to a real number imaginaries is deceptive. Maybe the use of vertical number which is not rational, so on this basis i is neither rational lines in school (e.g. temperature scales for working with nor irrational. Just as it doesn’t make sense to ask whether negative numbers) contributes to this easy false idea? But 2 is odd or even, because it is neither of the form 2n nor 3 the Argand diagram is not merely a horizontal number line of the form 2n + 1 (where n is an integer), it doesn’t make coupled with a vertical number line. The problem is that sense to ask whether i is rational or irrational. (Pupils we cannot say that 3i > 2i. This is quite counterintuitive: may think of ‘odd’ as any number that isn’t even but surely, whatever i is, 3 lots of it is more than 2 lots of it? But not state carefully that ‘number’ in this context means no! Let’s suppose that 3i > 2i. If we subtract 2i from both ‘integer’.) Rational and irrational are opposites, so it may sides, we get i > 0. But that cannot be true. If we multiply seem that a number which isn’t one must be the other, both sides of this inequality by i, since we are supposing and this is true across the reals, just as all integers are that i is positive (i > 0), the inequality sign will stay the either even or odd. However, the symmetry between same way round, giving i2 evens and odds is really quite unlike that between the know that i2 , giving us –1 > 0, which is clearly rationals and irrationals. We can specify what all the false. This means that we > must0. But haveby the been definition wrong of to i rationals are like (fractions with integer numerator and supposewe that i > 0,= or–1 that 3i > 2i. non-zero integer denominator), but the irrationals (of which, in a sense, there are far more) include not just the So we might think that, as it came out the wrong way surds but all kinds of strange things like e and , and even round at the end, with –1 > 0 instead of –1 < 0, we must lots of numbers which we can’t express in closed form. just have started the wrong way round at the beginning. The irrationals feel like the contents of a bin πinto which We have found that i isn’t positive, so it must be negative? we put all the badly-behaved numbers – and for this Let’s try that instead. Starting with i < 0, if we multiply reason it might feel like i really ought to go in that bin! both sides of this inequality by i, then since i is supposed to be negative now, this will reverse the inequality sign. Another problematic issue that arises with imaginary That means that we get i2 > 0 again, just like before, which numbers is to do with ordering. We know that for any we have just shown can’t be true! two real numbers, a and b, exactly one of the statements If i > 0 is false, and i < 0 is also false, perhaps we should a = b, a > b, a < b try i = 0? This seems unlikely. Starting with i = 0, we can must be true (the law of trichotomy). However, we can’t multiply both sides of this equation by i, and we get i2 = 0, do this with complex numbers. They can’t be ordered in which means –1 = 0, which is again false, of course. So we a useful way. If we take, for instance, 2 + 3i and 3 + 2i, we must have been wrong to say i = 0. can’t say This means that i is not greater than zero, or less than zero, 2 + 3i = 3 + 2i or equal to zero. We can’t use inequality signs between or 2 + 3i > 3 + 2i non-real numbers. I think I didn’t realize that this applied or 2 + 3i < 3 + 2i. to the purely imaginary numbers until at university I noticed that writing “Let > 0” also meant by implication None of those three statements is true.
Recommended publications
  • Irrational Numbers Unit 4 Lesson 6 IRRATIONAL NUMBERS
    Irrational Numbers Unit 4 Lesson 6 IRRATIONAL NUMBERS Students will be able to: Understand the meanings of Irrational Numbers Key Vocabulary: • Irrational Numbers • Examples of Rational Numbers and Irrational Numbers • Decimal expansion of Irrational Numbers • Steps for representing Irrational Numbers on number line IRRATIONAL NUMBERS A rational number is a number that can be expressed as a ratio or we can say that written as a fraction. Every whole number is a rational number, because any whole number can be written as a fraction. Numbers that are not rational are called irrational numbers. An Irrational Number is a real number that cannot be written as a simple fraction or we can say cannot be written as a ratio of two integers. The set of real numbers consists of the union of the rational and irrational numbers. If a whole number is not a perfect square, then its square root is irrational. For example, 2 is not a perfect square, and √2 is irrational. EXAMPLES OF RATIONAL NUMBERS AND IRRATIONAL NUMBERS Examples of Rational Number The number 7 is a rational number because it can be written as the 7 fraction . 1 The number 0.1111111….(1 is repeating) is also rational number 1 because it can be written as fraction . 9 EXAMPLES OF RATIONAL NUMBERS AND IRRATIONAL NUMBERS Examples of Irrational Numbers The square root of 2 is an irrational number because it cannot be written as a fraction √2 = 1.4142135…… Pi(휋) is also an irrational number. π = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 (and more...) 22 The approx. value of = 3.1428571428571..
    [Show full text]
  • Metrical Diophantine Approximation for Quaternions
    This is a repository copy of Metrical Diophantine approximation for quaternions. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90637/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Dodson, Maurice and Everitt, Brent orcid.org/0000-0002-0395-338X (2014) Metrical Diophantine approximation for quaternions. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. pp. 513-542. ISSN 1469-8064 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004114000462 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Under consideration for publication in Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 1 Metrical Diophantine approximation for quaternions By MAURICE DODSON† and BRENT EVERITT‡ Department of Mathematics, University of York, York, YO 10 5DD, UK (Received ; revised) Dedicated to J. W. S. Cassels. Abstract Analogues of the classical theorems of Khintchine, Jarn´ık and Jarn´ık-Besicovitch in the metrical theory of Diophantine approximation are established for quaternions by applying results on the measure of general ‘lim sup’ sets.
    [Show full text]
  • Proofs, Sets, Functions, and More: Fundamentals of Mathematical Reasoning, with Engaging Examples from Algebra, Number Theory, and Analysis
    Proofs, Sets, Functions, and More: Fundamentals of Mathematical Reasoning, with Engaging Examples from Algebra, Number Theory, and Analysis Mike Krebs James Pommersheim Anthony Shaheen FOR THE INSTRUCTOR TO READ i For the instructor to read We should put a section in the front of the book that organizes the organization of the book. It would be the instructor section that would have: { flow chart that shows which sections are prereqs for what sections. We can start making this now so we don't have to remember the flow later. { main organization and objects in each chapter { What a Cfu is and how to use it { Why we have the proofcomment formatting and what it is. { Applications sections and what they are { Other things that need to be pointed out. IDEA: Seperate each of the above into subsections that are labeled for ease of reading but not shown in the table of contents in the front of the book. ||||||||| main organization examples: ||||||| || In a course such as this, the student comes in contact with many abstract concepts, such as that of a set, a function, and an equivalence class of an equivalence relation. What is the best way to learn this material. We have come up with several rules that we want to follow in this book. Themes of the book: 1. The book has a few central mathematical objects that are used throughout the book. 2. Each central mathematical object from theme #1 must be a fundamental object in mathematics that appears in many areas of mathematics and its applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Rational Numbers Vs. Irrational Numbers Handout
    Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers by Nabil Nassif, PhD in cooperation with Sophie Moufawad, MS and the assistance of Ghina El Jannoun, MS and Dania Sheaib, MS American University of Beirut, Lebanon An MIT BLOSSOMS Module August, 2012 Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers “The ultimate Nature of Reality is Numbers” A quote from Pythagoras (570-495 BC) Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers “Wherever there is number, there is beauty” A quote from Proclus (412-485 AD) Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers Traditional Clock plus Circumference 1 1 min = of 1 hour 60 Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers An Electronic Clock plus a Calendar Hour : Minutes : Seconds dd/mm/yyyy 1 1 month = of 1year 12 1 1 day = of 1 year (normally) 365 1 1 hour = of 1 day 24 1 1 min = of 1 hour 60 1 1 sec = of 1 min 60 Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers TSquares: Use of Pythagoras Theorem Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers Golden number ϕ and Golden rectangle 1+√5 1 1 √5 Roots of x2 x 1=0are ϕ = and = − − − 2 − ϕ 2 Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers Golden number ϕ and Inner Golden spiral Drawn with up to 10 golden rectangles Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers Outer Golden spiral and L. Fibonacci (1175-1250) sequence = 1 , 1 , 2, 3, 5, 8, 13..., fn, ... : fn = fn 1+fn 2,n 3 F { } − − ≥ f1 f2 1 n n 1 1 !"#$ !"#$ fn = (ϕ +( 1) − ) √5 − ϕn Rational numbers vs. Irrational numbers Euler’s Number e 1 1 1 s = 1 + + + =2.6666....66.... 3 1! 2 3! 1 1 1 s = 1 + + + =2.70833333...333...
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Numbers
    The Evolution of Numbers Counting Numbers Counting Numbers: {1, 2, 3, …} We use numbers to count: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc You can have "3 friends" A field can have "6 cows" Whole Numbers Whole numbers are the counting numbers plus zero. Whole Numbers: {0, 1, 2, 3, …} Negative Numbers We can count forward: 1, 2, 3, 4, ...... but what if we count backward: 3, 2, 1, 0, ... what happens next? The answer is: negative numbers: {…, -3, -2, -1} A negative number is any number less than zero. Integers If we include the negative numbers with the whole numbers, we have a new set of numbers that are called integers: {…, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …} The Integers include zero, the counting numbers, and the negative counting numbers, to make a list of numbers that stretch in either direction indefinitely. Rational Numbers A rational number is a number that can be written as a simple fraction (i.e. as a ratio). 2.5 is rational, because it can be written as the ratio 5/2 7 is rational, because it can be written as the ratio 7/1 0.333... (3 repeating) is also rational, because it can be written as the ratio 1/3 More formally we say: A rational number is a number that can be written in the form p/q where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. Example: If p is 3 and q is 2, then: p/q = 3/2 = 1.5 is a rational number Rational Numbers include: all integers all fractions Irrational Numbers An irrational number is a number that cannot be written as a simple fraction.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Number: FD-00133
    Math Released Set 2015 Algebra 1 PBA Item #13 Two Real Numbers Defined M44105 Prompt Rubric Task is worth a total of 3 points. M44105 Rubric Score Description 3 Student response includes the following 3 elements. • Reasoning component = 3 points o Correct identification of a as rational and b as irrational o Correct identification that the product is irrational o Correct reasoning used to determine rational and irrational numbers Sample Student Response: A rational number can be written as a ratio. In other words, a number that can be written as a simple fraction. a = 0.444444444444... can be written as 4 . Thus, a is a 9 rational number. All numbers that are not rational are considered irrational. An irrational number can be written as a decimal, but not as a fraction. b = 0.354355435554... cannot be written as a fraction, so it is irrational. The product of an irrational number and a nonzero rational number is always irrational, so the product of a and b is irrational. You can also see it is irrational with my calculations: 4 (.354355435554...)= .15749... 9 .15749... is irrational. 2 Student response includes 2 of the 3 elements. 1 Student response includes 1 of the 3 elements. 0 Student response is incorrect or irrelevant. Anchor Set A1 – A8 A1 Score Point 3 Annotations Anchor Paper 1 Score Point 3 This response receives full credit. The student includes each of the three required elements: • Correct identification of a as rational and b as irrational (The number represented by a is rational . The number represented by b would be irrational).
    [Show full text]
  • WHY a DEDEKIND CUT DOES NOT PRODUCE IRRATIONAL NUMBERS And, Open Intervals Are Not Sets
    WHY A DEDEKIND CUT DOES NOT PRODUCE IRRATIONAL NUMBERS And, Open Intervals are not Sets Pravin K. Johri The theory of mathematics claims that the set of real numbers is uncountable while the set of rational numbers is countable. Almost all real numbers are supposed to be irrational but there are few examples of irrational numbers relative to the rational numbers. The reality does not match the theory. Real numbers satisfy the field axioms but the simple arithmetic in these axioms can only result in rational numbers. The Dedekind cut is one of the ways mathematics rationalizes the existence of irrational numbers. Excerpts from the Wikipedia page “Dedekind cut” A Dedekind cut is а method of construction of the real numbers. It is a partition of the rational numbers into two non-empty sets A and B, such that all elements of A are less than all elements of B, and A contains no greatest element. If B has a smallest element among the rationals, the cut corresponds to that rational. Otherwise, that cut defines a unique irrational number which, loosely speaking, fills the "gap" between A and B. The countable partitions of the rational numbers cannot result in uncountable irrational numbers. Moreover, a known irrational number, or any real number for that matter, defines a Dedekind cut but it is not possible to go in the other direction and create a Dedekind cut which then produces an unknown irrational number. 1 Irrational Numbers There is an endless sequence of finite natural numbers 1, 2, 3 … based on the Peano axiom that if n is a natural number then so is n+1.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Uncommon Standard Number Sets
    Common and Uncommon Standard Number Sets W. Blaine Dowler July 8, 2010 Abstract There are a number of important (and interesting unimportant) sets in mathematics. Sixteen of those sets are detailed here. Contents 1 Natural Numbers 2 2 Whole Numbers 2 3 Prime Numbers 3 4 Composite Numbers 3 5 Perfect Numbers 3 6 Integers 4 7 Rational Numbers 4 8 Algebraic Numbers 5 9 Real Numbers 5 10 Irrational Numbers 6 11 Transcendental Numbers 6 12 Normal Numbers 6 13 Schizophrenic Numbers 7 14 Imaginary Numbers 7 15 Complex Numbers 8 16 Quaternions 8 1 1 Natural Numbers The first set of numbers to be defined is the set of natural numbers. The set is usually labeled N. This set is the smallest set that satisfies the following two conditions: 1. 1 is a natural number, usually written compactly as 1 2 N. 2. If n 2 N, then n + 1 2 N. As this is the smallest set that satisfies these conditions, it is constructed by starting with 1, adding 1 to 1, adding 1 to that, and so forth, such that N = f1; 2; 3; 4;:::g Note that set theorists will often include 0 in the natural numbers. The set of natural numbers was defined formally starting with 1 long before set theorists developed a rigorous way to define numbers as sets. In that formalism, it makes more sense to start with 0, but 1 is the more common standard because it long predates modern set theory. More advanced mathematicians may have encountered \proof by induction." This is a method of completing proofs.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on the Real Numbers and Other Division Algebras
    Some Notes on the Real Numbers and other Division Algebras August 21, 2018 1 The Real Numbers Here is the standard classification of the real numbers (which I will denote by R). Q Z N Irrationals R 1 I personally think of the natural numbers as N = f0; 1; 2; 3; · · · g: Of course, not everyone agrees with this particular definition. From a modern perspective, 0 is the \most natural" number since all other numbers can be built out of it using machinery from set theory. Also, I have never used (or even seen) a symbol for the whole numbers in any mathematical paper. No one disagrees on the definition of the integers Z = f0; ±1; ±2; ±3; · · · g: The fancy Z stands for the German word \Zahlen" which means \numbers." To avoid the controversy over what exactly constitutes the natural numbers, many mathematicians will use Z≥0 to stand for the non-negative integers and Z>0 to stand for the positive integers. The rational numbers are given the fancy symbol Q (for Quotient): n a o = a; b 2 ; b > 0; a and b share no common prime factors : Q b Z The set of irrationals is not given any special symbol that I know of and is rather difficult to define rigorously. The usual notion that a number is irrational if it has a non-terminating, non-repeating decimal expansion is the easiest characterization, but that actually entails a lot of baggage about representations of numbers. For example, if a number has a non-terminating, non-repeating decimal expansion, will its expansion in base 7 also be non- terminating and non-repeating? The answer is yes, but it takes some work to prove that.
    [Show full text]
  • Logarithms of Integers Are Irrational
    Logarithms of Integers are Irrational J¨orgFeldvoss∗ Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36688{0002, USA May 19, 2008 Abstract In this short note we prove that the natural logarithm of every integer ≥ 2 is an irrational number and that the decimal logarithm of any integer is irrational unless it is a power of 10. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 11R04 In this short note we prove that logarithms of most integers are irrational. Theorem 1: The natural logarithm of every integer n ≥ 2 is an irrational number. a Proof: Suppose that ln n = b is a rational number for some integers a and b. Wlog we can assume that a; b > 0. Using the third logarithmic identity we obtain that the above equation is equivalent to nb = ea. Since a and b both are positive integers, it follows that e is the root of a polynomial with integer coefficients (and leading coefficient 1), namely, the polynomial xa − nb. Hence e is an algebraic number (even an algebraic integer) which is a contradiction. 2 Remark 1: It follows from the proof that for any base b which is a transcendental number the logarithm logb n of every integer n ≥ 2 is an irrational number. (It is not alwaysp true that logb n is already irrational for every integer n ≥ 2 if b is irrational as the example b = 2 and n = 2 shows!) Question: Is it always true that logb n is already transcendental for every integer n ≥ 2 if b is transcendental? The following well-known result will be needed in [1, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter I, the Real and Complex Number Systems
    CHAPTER I THE REAL AND COMPLEX NUMBERS DEFINITION OF THE NUMBERS 1, i; AND p2 In order to make precise sense out of the concepts we study in mathematical analysis, we must first come to terms with what the \real numbers" are. Everything in mathematical analysis is based on these numbers, and their very definition and existence is quite deep. We will, in fact, not attempt to demonstrate (prove) the existence of the real numbers in the body of this text, but will content ourselves with a careful delineation of their properties, referring the interested reader to an appendix for the existence and uniqueness proofs. Although people may always have had an intuitive idea of what these real num- bers were, it was not until the nineteenth century that mathematically precise definitions were given. The history of how mathematicians came to realize the necessity for such precision in their definitions is fascinating from a philosophical point of view as much as from a mathematical one. However, we will not pursue the philosophical aspects of the subject in this book, but will be content to con- centrate our attention just on the mathematical facts. These precise definitions are quite complicated, but the powerful possibilities within mathematical analysis rely heavily on this precision, so we must pursue them. Toward our primary goals, we will in this chapter give definitions of the symbols (numbers) 1; i; and p2: − The main points of this chapter are the following: (1) The notions of least upper bound (supremum) and greatest lower bound (infimum) of a set of numbers, (2) The definition of the real numbers R; (3) the formula for the sum of a geometric progression (Theorem 1.9), (4) the Binomial Theorem (Theorem 1.10), and (5) the triangle inequality for complex numbers (Theorem 1.15).
    [Show full text]
  • Infinitesimals
    Infinitesimals: History & Application Joel A. Tropp Plan II Honors Program, WCH 4.104, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 Abstract. An infinitesimal is a number whose magnitude ex- ceeds zero but somehow fails to exceed any finite, positive num- ber. Although logically problematic, infinitesimals are extremely appealing for investigating continuous phenomena. They were used extensively by mathematicians until the late 19th century, at which point they were purged because they lacked a rigorous founda- tion. In 1960, the logician Abraham Robinson revived them by constructing a number system, the hyperreals, which contains in- finitesimals and infinitely large quantities. This thesis introduces Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), the set of techniques which Robinson invented. It contains a rigorous de- velopment of the hyperreals and shows how they can be used to prove the fundamental theorems of real analysis in a direct, natural way. (Incredibly, a great deal of the presentation echoes the work of Leibniz, which was performed in the 17th century.) NSA has also extended mathematics in directions which exceed the scope of this thesis. These investigations may eventually result in fruitful discoveries. Contents Introduction: Why Infinitesimals? vi Chapter 1. Historical Background 1 1.1. Overview 1 1.2. Origins 1 1.3. Continuity 3 1.4. Eudoxus and Archimedes 5 1.5. Apply when Necessary 7 1.6. Banished 10 1.7. Regained 12 1.8. The Future 13 Chapter 2. Rigorous Infinitesimals 15 2.1. Developing Nonstandard Analysis 15 2.2. Direct Ultrapower Construction of ∗R 17 2.3. Principles of NSA 28 2.4. Working with Hyperreals 32 Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]